4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Zagreb.
5.  On 24 March 1993 the applicant brought a civil action against the company T. (“the employer”) in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages for a work-related injury.
6.  On 3 February 1995 the Municipal Court gave judgment awarding damages to the applicant in the amount of 31,780 Croatian kunas (HRK) and the litigation costs.
7.  On 21 May 1996 the employer appealed to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu).
8.  On 23 March 1999 the County Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.
9.  In the resumed proceedings, the Municipal Court held a hearing on 7 December 1999 at which it requested the applicant to provide the minutes drawn up by the labour inspectorate concerning the incident resulting in his injury or to indicate a person or authority who possessed that document. On 12 June 2000 the court repeated its request.
10.  On 16 June 2000 and 3 January 2001 the applicant requested the court to invite the employer to produce the above evidence. On 26 June 2001 the court did so.
11.  At the hearing held on 14 December 2001 the court decided to effect an in situ inspection (očevid) on 15 February 2002 with the assistance of an expert, and invited the applicant to advance the costs. Since the applicant did so only on 19 February 2002, the inspection did not take place.
12.  On 3 January 2002 the Zagreb Commercial Court (Trgovački sud u Zagrebu) decided to open bankruptcy proceedings against the employer. It invited the creditors to report their claims by 28 February 2002 and scheduled a hearing, at which the reported claims were to be examined, for 20 March 2002. In accordance with the Bankruptcy Act, the decision was published in the “Official Gazette” no. 6/02 of 21 January 2002.
13.  On 8 May 2002 the Zagreb Municipal Court invited the applicant to inform it whether the bankruptcy proceedings had been opened against the employer. On 8 June 2002 the applicant replied in the affirmative and requested that any future communication with the employer be conducted through its bankruptcy manager (stečajni upravitelj).
14.  On 12 June 2002 the Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on account of the pending bankruptcy proceedings.
15.  On 13 June 2002 the applicant reported his claim to the Zagreb Commercial Court. On 8 January 2004 and 30 June 2005 he filed two rush notes with that court urging the delivery of a decision on his claim.
16.  On 20 March 2006 the Commercial Court, without issuing a formal decision, replied that in the bankruptcy proceedings against the employer the applicant’s claim had never been examined.
17.  It would appear that both the civil and the bankruptcy proceedings are formally still pending.
18.  Meanwhile, on 18 June 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) complaining about the length of the civil proceedings.
19.  On 16 December 2002 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It examined the length of the proceedings in their part following the Convention’s entry into force with respect to Croatia. The Constitutional Court held that the delay was attributable to the complexity of the case and the applicant’s conduct. It found that the applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings in that he had not responded to the Municipal Court’s request of 7 December 1999 for more than six months, that he had failed to advance the inspection costs in due time and that he had failed to request the Municipal Court to invite the bankruptcy manager to take over the civil proceedings which would have resulted in their resumption.